On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Michael Sloan wrote:
> What if instead we re-framed this as a "top-level where clause", like this:
>
> main :: IO ()
> main = putStrLn ("Hi" <> "There")
>
> other-function :: IO ()
> other-function = putStrLn ("I can " <> "also use it")
>
> --
I agree with Tom on this. This isn't a good way to spend the cleverness budget.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:34 AM, wrote:
> I'm weakly against this proposal. I may compile with -Wall, but I read code
> by many people who don't. When I'm browsing a file and see e.g.
>
> import
I'm weakly against this proposal. I may compile with -Wall, but I read code by
many people who don't. When I'm browsing a file and see e.g.
import Network.Socket
and then later in the file, I see a reference to "recvFrom", I currently know
exactly what function is being called. I don't want to
I added a description of the workflow for multiple dependent diffs here:
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Phabricator#Workingwithmultipledependentdiffs
Please let me know if anything doesn't make sense. Note that I never let
arc squash my commits, keeping commits 1:1 with diffs makes things
Yeah... let's not have import order sensitivity.
On Wednesday, October 5, 2016, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
> Yuras Shumovich wrote:
> >> Can we generalize the proposal such that subsequent imports shadow
> >> preceding ones?
>
> Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> > ...iirc there is a
Yuras Shumovich wrote:
>> Can we generalize the proposal such that subsequent imports shadow
>> preceding ones?
Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> ...iirc there is a different idea...
> allowing explicitly enumerated names...
> to shadow imports from other modules which didn't explicitly name the
>